NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing - (1 Viewer)

isladogs

MVP / VIP
Local time
Today, 20:29
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
18,186
Doc

Its been entrenched since the start.

Of course you are not alone in your beliefs, either here on in the wider world.
However, well over 90% of the scientific evidence opposes your views that you are
desperately clinging
onto (your words)

See the link in post 97 for an Arctic ice spread chart going back to 1850
 

AccessBlaster

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 13:29
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
5,826
The fact that you think caring about other people and the planet is fascism says everything everyone will ever need to know about you.
Personally I think there are passionate and caring people on both sides of the issue.
 

AccessBlaster

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 13:29
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
5,826
I don't know if this article has been debated or not, I stumbled across it the other day.
Supposedly the AP, Washington Post and the Times ran it when it was published. Take note of the year.

link to the NOAA PDF.


The Changing Arctic: Monthly Weather Review 1922
2 Comments / Sea Ice / By Dr. Ed
Monthly Weather Review, November 1922, page 589. (See NOAA PDF here.)
by George Nicolas IFFT
(Under the date of October 10, 1922, the American consul at Bergen, Norway, submitted the following report to the State Department, Washington, D.C.)
The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth’s surface.
In August, 1922, the Norwegian Department of Commerce sent an expedition to Spetzbergen and Bear Island under the leadership of Dr. Adolf Hoel, lecturer on geology at the University of Christiania. Its purpose was to survey and chart the islands, take soundings of the adjacent waters, and make other oceanographic investigations.
Dr. Hoel, who has just returned, reports the location of hitherto unknown coal deposits on the eastern shores of Advent Bay – deposits of vast extent and superior quality. This is regarded as of first importance, as so far most of the coal mined by the Norwegian companies on those islands has not been of the best quality.
The oceanographic observations have, however, been even more interesting. Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes in ice-free water. This is the farthest north ever reached with modern oceanographic apparatus.
The character of the waters of the great polar basin has heretofore been practically unknown. Dr. Hoel reports that he made a section of the Gulf Stream at 81 degrees north latitude and took soundings to a depth of 3100 meters. These show the Gulf Stream very warm, and it could be traced as a surface current till beyond the 81st parallel. The warmth of the waters makes it probable that the favorable ice conditions will continue for some time.
Later a section was taken of the Gulf Stream off Bear Island and off the Isfjord, as well as a cection of the cold current that comes down along the west coast of Spitzbergen off the south cape.
In connection with Dr. Hoel’s report, it is of interest to note the unusually warm summer in ArcticNorway and the observations of Capt. Martin Ingebrigtsen, who has sailed the eastern Arctic for 54 years past. He says that he first noted warmer conditions in 1918, that since that time it has steadily gotten warmer, and that to-day the Arctic of that region is not recognizable as the same region of 1868 to 1917.
Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable. Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now often moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared.
The change in temperature, says Captain Ingebrightsen, has also brought about great change in the flora and fauna of the Arctic. This summer he sought for white fish in Spitzbergen waters. Formerly great shoals of them were found there. This year he saw none, although he visited all the old fishing grounds.
There were few seal in Spitzbergen waters this year, the catch being far under the average. This, however, did not surprise the captain. He pointed out that formerly the waters around Spitzbergen held an even summer temperature of about 3 degrees Celsius; this year recorded temperatures up to 15 degrees, and last winter the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast of Spitzbergen.
With the disappearance of white fish and seal has come other life in these waters. This year herring in great shoals were found along the west coast of Spitzbergen, all the way from the fry to the veritable great herring. Shoals of smelt were also net with.
 

Rx_

Nothing In Moderation
Local time
Today, 14:29
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
2,803
Funny how much credit people give Trump or some other group for a grand plan. Many Trump haters are actually appear to be closet admirers.
Typically, follow the money and find out why there is self-interest.

In India, people find a snake in the house and hire a mystic Snake Charmer to remove it. The mystic shows up in robes and chants, warning that one snake usually means many snakes. They charge per snake. They hide snakes in their robes. They come out with a half-dozen snakes.

The fanatic nature of Man-Made CO2 causing global change is a theory.
Not accepting some of the studies does not preclude being brain-washed by some Alien, President, or conspiracy.
 

Vassago

Former Staff Turned AWF Retiree
Local time
Today, 16:29
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
4,751
The fanatic nature of Man-Made CO2 causing global change is a theory.
Not accepting some of the studies does not preclude being brain-washed by some Alien, President, or conspiracy.

I totally agree with this. On the other hand, you have others that seem to believe that global warming is actually not a real thing at all, man-made or otherwise, though this is something we can actually prove with data models where the cause isn't being investigated.

Though I'm sure if you follow the money, those claims are often linked to money trails on fossil fuels, etc... and eaten up by the conspiracy base.
 

AccessBlaster

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 13:29
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
5,826
Though I'm sure if you follow the money, those claims are often linked to money trails on fossil fuels, etc... and eaten up by the conspiracy base.

I am sure if you follow the money, you might find scientist and climatologist who are threaten with lack of grants and other special funding for not towing the political line. Or just plain excoriated for daring to present opposing views.

Conspiracies are not created in a vacuum and not restricted to one point of view.
 
Last edited:

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 15:29
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
27,001
For the record, I do not deny the existence of climatic changes including warming, cooling, ice shrinkage, ice growth, storms, ocean-level rise or fall, you name it. My one and only issue is that I disagree with the suggested magnitude of the Anthropogenic part of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

And it is on record that the guy who came up with the "97% of climate scientists concur" statement was an unemployed comics illustrator. I'm sure HIS qualifications are sufficient to allow him to make such a comment.
 

Frothingslosh

Premier Pale Stale Ale
Local time
Today, 16:29
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
3,276
AAARGH

For the love of the FSM, it's 'toeing the line', not 'towing the line'!!!

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
 

isladogs

MVP / VIP
Local time
Today, 20:29
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
18,186
Doc
Well that seems to be a slight shift in your viewpoint!
You've argued throughout that increased CO2 due to human activity is not a significant factor leading to climate change.
For example:

Post #84
Do we see changes in our climate? Hell, yes, we do. Climate ALWAYS changes. I have never denied that climate changes. My stance has always been WHY -and I have rejected the CO2 mantra in favor of the cyclic nature of weather.

#85
A moot point UNLESS you buy into the argument of cause and effect. If you don't buy into CO2 as the villain, those charts are merely statistics of no particular consequence. Putting the cart before the horse.

Now you are implying you accept it is a factor but think its smaller than many studies suggest

#108
For the record, I do not deny the existence of climatic changes including warming, cooling, ice shrinkage, ice growth, storms, ocean-level rise or fall, you name it. My one and only issue is that I disagree with the suggested magnitude of the Anthropogenic part of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
 

Vassago

Former Staff Turned AWF Retiree
Local time
Today, 16:29
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
4,751
Doc
Well that seems to be a slight shift in your viewpoint!
You've argued throughout that increased CO2 due to human activity is not a significant factor leading to climate change.
For example:

Post #84


#85


Now you are implying you accept it is a factor but think its smaller than many studies suggest

#108

I don't see a contradiction at all. He seems to pretty consistently not deny Climate Change, but questions humanity's role in it.
 

Frothingslosh

Premier Pale Stale Ale
Local time
Today, 16:29
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
3,276
Yeah, I wasn't taking that bait. :p

 

Attachments

  • GrammarNaziCat.jpg
    GrammarNaziCat.jpg
    19 KB · Views: 306

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 15:29
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
27,001
Colin, those posts (84 & 85) seem OK to me. I am saying that the disaster everyone is claiming uses CO2 as its villain. I am denying that it is such a huge villain.

I think the CO2 contribution is small. Post #84 rejects the AGW mantra that blames everything on CO2. Post #85 says that CO2 can't be the cause because the magnitude of that factor is disproportionate to the effect. If you think the three posts you named are self-contradictory, I must say I don't see them that way.

However, we must remember that prime factor of all human communication.

I believe you think you know what I said, but you do not realize that I didn't say what I meant.

Can't remember where I first read that convoluted little phrase, but it has been around for decades.
 

isladogs

MVP / VIP
Local time
Today, 20:29
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
18,186
I believe that your statements in #84 & #85 were consistent with each other (though of course I think your arguments are fallacious). However to my mind, there was a slight shift in what you wrote in #108.

I have pointed out in at least one reply that the warming caused by CO2 emissions is amplified by the effect of water vapour. The combination has an effect greater than each would have individually.

I hope you read the BBC article in my link from post #115.
The UK Met Office has been providing long range climate models for a very long time. Its long term predictions have turned out to be extremely accurate for many decades. Even though you do not accept the causes of global warming, you should still be concerned about the probable outcomes for the next 10 years
 
Last edited:

AccessBlaster

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 13:29
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
5,826
In regards to the link in post #115 Climate change: World heading for warmest decade, says Met Office

By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent

If the opposition submitted a link by any "correspondent" it would be shred immediately, similar to any articles originating from the Cato Institute.

One side can use "Environment correspondents" to prove their case but a climatologist connected to Cato is being bought off by big oil or Koch Bros. Irrespective of their data, they are dismissed.
 

isladogs

MVP / VIP
Local time
Today, 20:29
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
18,186
In regards to the link in post #115 Climate change: World heading for warmest decade, says Met Office

By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent

If the opposition submitted a link by any "correspondent" it would be shred immediately, similar to any articles originating from the Cato Institute.

One side can use "Environment correspondents" to prove their case but a climatologist connected to Cato is being bought off by big oil or Koch Bros. Irrespective of their data, they are dismissed.

I expected that response.
The point here is that the source of the models summarised in that article is the UK Meteorological Office.

BBC articles are generally balanced and normally provide original reference source links.
In this case it didn't do so but it was the easiest source for me to provide a link to the information on the day it was published.

Here are links to some of the source information summarised (accurately) in that article
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2019/global-surface-temperature-in-2018
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/modelling-systems
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2019/2019-carbondioxide-forecast
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2018/2019-global-temperature-forecast

There is much more on the same site about climate, modelling etc.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom